Jesse FPV

The chronological order is: 1. 1967 war, Israel captures Gaza but doesn't annex it, assuming it will be traded back to Egypt for peace with the rest of Sinai and trying to avoid another refugee situation. 2. 1973, settlements are built in the strip. 3. 1979, peace accord with Egypt, Gaza remains under Israeli control. 4. 1993, Israel starts peace negotiations with the Palestinians based on a 2 state solution. All peace talks brake down and the 1st and later 2nd intifada start, thousands of Israelis die in terror attacks. In 2001 rocket fire starts from Gaza to Israel and is stopped by ground operations. 5. 2005, Israel unilaterally cedes Gaza to the Palestinians, based on the assumption it is politically impossible for them to sign a peace accord but they really would like to live in peace. To do this, every Jew is removed from the strip, many by force by the IDF; every settlement is removed, every military base abandoned, many agricultural tools and lands left untouched for Palestinians to use (these were burned down by cheering Palestinians). Israeli presence in the strip is completely removed, and many agreements are signed that aren't peace accords that would allow for a "cold war, silent peace" type of existence side by side - about access, about water, etc. 6. 2006, Israel votes in Ehud Olmert as PM on a platform of doing the same in the WB. The Palestinians vote in Hamas on the platform of killing all Jews, seeing the retreat from Gaza as a military victory. The PA suspends future elections and refuses to give power to Hamas. War for gaza breaks out, Hamas kills all PA members in Gaza and takes over, cancelling all previous agreements with Israel. Israel, aided by the European quartet, starts the siege. 2nd Lebanon war breaks out; Olmert says this is proof that the world would side with Israel if Israel will deal fairly with the Palestinians and that Israel's right to self defense will be honored. During the war, Hamas fires rockets on Israel, putting a final end to the idea of a unilateral end to the occupation in the WB. Olmert turns to peace talks with the semi-legitimate Abbas. 7. 2008, peace talks go on and on until Olemet quits - he has several corruption charges pending and quits to deal with the trial. No peace is achieved. Netanyahu win on the platform of not being stupid enough to give more land to the Palestinians, since they don't seem to be interested in peace and are constantly shooting rockets at Israel. Basically status quo since then. There's much more, but this is an overview of the situation. You can read more on any part of this, but the gist is that Israel tried your way honestly and got war in response. The occupation ends when the Palestinians choose peace.

@RedTrustSociety @renetation @StatisticUrban Because for this version of the question I intentionally choose the numbers in such a way that blue loses. x.com/JesseFPV/statu…

@JesseFPV @renetation @StatisticUrban Why will they die either way? Why you know that not everyone will think that there are baby’s who press wrong who they need to safe? I’m still a red guy, just curious

The original question specified "everyone in the world." There's a critical mass of young children/babies who would not, under any circumstances, be able to understand the question, and would pick randomly. Voting blue is the only way to save them.

You have indeed Dunning-Kruegerd yourself here. Game theory is a way to consider all options in a given situation assuming everyone involved is a rational, self-interested "player", acting to maximise his own utility and profit; the idea is to allow you to find the best outcome for yourself in an economic sense, in what would produce the most material gain in a given "game". It is often noted that real humans aren't rational, and many will not act rationally, so the outcomes are often not predictive of actual results - it just shows you what the best result could be. For instance a classic game that shows irrationality is the I split you accept game. I split 1ml$ between us, and you can accept the outcome for both of us or refuse, and then we both get nothing. Game theory posits that if I give you 1$ and keep the rest, you should accept because 1$ is more than you'd get if you refuse - but obviously to everyone, most people would reject it out of spite, and would rather have nothing than an insultingly low piece of the pie. In the red/blue button game, assuming every player is a rational self-interested person, they would all have the same thought process - "Pressing red means I am in no risk of dying; everyone will figure this out and press red, so I can also press red without risking anyone or forcing anyone else to risk themselves to save me", and then everyone presses red and they all live. But, as the entire discourse demonstrates, humans are not rational players and many many people are just incapable of even understanding the situation and would place themselves in needless danger, which is the exact point of the question. People keep telling you the solution to the riddle and you keep insisting that, no, actually they are just evil for solving it.

The thing I don't understand about red/blue button is everyone saying the red option is the option for those who considered game theory when their reasoning seems to largely be entirely bereft of it? "I chose red because red means I live; no I didn't consider the potential actions of others in my choice smh you don't understand game theory like I do" ?????????

Lebanon is a sovereign country... ... which makes their failure to contain Hezbollah a much greater crime. Israel has suffered attacks from this so called sovereign country for the last 25 years; shouldn't the Lebanese do anything to stop this aggression? Shouldn't they be held accountable for this failure?

Israel is destroying towns and displacing civilians in Southern Lebanon to create a "buffer zone". I get WHY they are doing this, but this is a very different situation, legally, than Gaza. Lebanon is a sovereign country.

@cosmiclibe57707 @drwatsonabc @WokeFDR Yeah, adding the toddlers is just an attempt at emotional manipulation. You can do the same by saying the person adding them gets to vote for them - will they still vote blue for the toddlers? Will putting them at risk be moral?

@drwatsonabc @JesseFPV @WokeFDR and I refuse to potentially leave behind my family and animals by voting blue in a vain attempt to save idiots. also, dragging in the argument of toddlers just kills the whole discussion. if toddlers and the like are forced to press a button, we reject the whole premise & revolt

The dividing line in the red/blue button debate is really how far you can abstract. Game theory nerds think rationality is entirely “what’s the smartest *individual* choice I can make” rather than “what’s the likeliest to produce the best possible outcome”

Red is not a team, that's the point. It's just a mass of individuals pressing buttons rationally, trying to figure out what others will press based on their own self-intrest. No one said toddlers deserve to die, other than the person creating the buttons; acknowledging you can't save them is not the same. Honestly, it's weird that you'd parse it like that.

@JesseFPV @drwatsonabc @WokeFDR At what point you red pushers went from "the most logical option" to "IM A CONTRARIAN, I WANT MY TEAM TO WIN NO MATTER WHAT, TODDLERS DESERVE TO DIE BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY FAULT THEY ARE DUMB!!!"?

@drwatsonabc @WokeFDR You are not voting to kill the toddlers. The person making the buttons is killing them. You are voting to live or not live by yourself. It's ok to be suicidal, but you really shouldn't assign morality to others based on your lack of a will to live.

@JesseFPV @WokeFDR I would rather die with half of all toddlers than vote to kill half of all toddlers. If blue is destined to lose the vote, then I don't want to live on this fuckass planet anymore.

@drwatsonabc @WokeFDR Assume 15% blue vote, which includes 50% of toddlers, but also people who didn't understand the situation, very optimistic people who can't do math, people who just want to die, etc. Do you still press the blue button? At that point it just means "die with the toddlers".

@JesseFPV @WokeFDR Pre-verbal toddlers are not rational. Half of them will wind up randomly mashing the blue button. I refuse to vote for 50% toddler genocide.

@renetation @StatisticUrban But you are not voting for them to die. You are voting for yourself to not die. They will die either way, you can do the math; red wins by a large margin. Your best case scenario is impossible. You are simply killing yourself.

@JesseFPV @StatisticUrban i’d still choose blue, bc i cannot bring myself to vote for those few kids who vote blue to die just to secure my survival when we can all survive, your best case scenario a few kids die, my best case scenario everyone lives

The red victory will be overwhelming and you will not save anyone by voting blue; you will just performatively die with them. That's the tragedy here. Yes, some amount of people will vote blue by mistake, because they didn't grasp the situation, etc.; just like some people fall to drugs, some lose money in ponzi schemes, get ripped off, and so on - and you can't save them. This is what is hard about this question - you can't save anyone, you can only die alongside them. Choosing blue isn't saving anyone.

@JesseFPV @WokeFDR Rational people know that: 1- Regardless of the question, some people will always choose randomly or a "wrong" option, it's impossible for everyone to agree on one choice 2- A red victory, unless it's absolutely overwhelming, has terrible social implications Thus you vote blue

@renetation @StatisticUrban Let's say it's 50\50 for >5y/o and it tips as they age up to 100% red once they get to 10y/o or over. You are now in the game with 1,000 children divided equally between 0 to 15y/o; based on those assumptions, what do you press?

@JesseFPV @StatisticUrban i worked with 5y/o, i can assure most of them will choose blue bc it’s “their favorite color” or bc assume “red button = bad” and even if most of 5y/o choose red, it’s impossible for ALL of them to choose red

@renetation @StatisticUrban Have you never met a 5 y/o? They just like red things. IF you can get them to press a button, they'll press the red one as well.

@JesseFPV @StatisticUrban a 10y/o might be fine, a 5 y/o? probably will see red=bad and choose the blue, a baby even worse as it would be totally random, are u willing to risk their life’s just because they “don’t think rationally”?

@morallawwithin It would help if you described it instead of having me google it.

Hi guys can we have a three-day discourse about Newcomb’s problem. It’s so much cooler! And I know some really cool variants.

@wbic16 Red is not a team and they cannot possibly lose, that's the whole point of the question. Red is an individual that's fine either way.

Why red teamers are losing:

@CptAncapistan You should also try it with the colors of yhe buttons revesed - blue nothing happens, red kills all red pushers unless 50% vote red. Just instinctively you feel that blue is the "moral" choice and it leada you to try and appease the asker by choosing it, whatever it is.

These are the two best reframings of the button question I’ve seen. They’re both essentially the same concept, but one makes blue the easy choice and the other makes red the easy choice. Sorry, I just find this thought experiment fascinating.

@orthodoxmason It's ok that you didn't read the books but did you also not see the movies? That's not how it happened at all. In the end Frodo voted red and then Golom voted red harder and accidentally fell into to mountain.

Sauron was defeated precisely because he couldn’t fathom anyone picking blue. Who would be stupid enough? Frodo and Company toppled a dark lord not through might of arms, but through commitment to Virtue. Subverting the empire for the kingdom

The question boils down to "Do you think 50% of people or more will press the blue button?"; if you don't, pressing blue just means death, but if you do it also doesn't matter what you press. The more irrational part is people thinking their vote saves everyone. My friend, you couldn't even get your guy into the white-house, what makes you think you can get 50% of earth to press the blue button?

And I'm picking red because I'm not going to kill myself or expect some other dope to do the same to follow some intellectually dysgenic freakshow you CAN'T FIGURE OUT TO PRESS THE COLOR CODED BUTTON THAT WON'T KILL THEM. In all cases Red gets me what I want.

But if everyone voted red it would also work out for everyone. The thing is, you are not saving them. You pressing blue has not impact at all on the resolution of this, because everyone in china will vote red either way, and every child, and every person that honks before the lights change. You are not enough to save anyone, you will not change anything. You can either die or not die, and that will not matter at all for the result. BUT If everyone thought like that than everyone would live, because that's how the system is designed to work in this case. If you vote for your own best interest you are fine, and everyone gets the same shot, so everyone that wants to be fine is fine.

@JesseFPV i assume at least the question will be posed, but like are you saying 600 million will be dead an it's ok? feels like if everyone voted blue it would work out for every one.

There are roughly 1.6 billion children under the age of 12. The question boils down to will these children press the button on their own or do guardians get to influence or press on their behalf. If the children are on their own, pressing blue is the moral imperative.

@NathanpmYoung The creator of the buttons is killing you; I am just unwilling to also die needlessly alongside you.

The next one of these that goes viral, I commit to voting blue, because I reckon we are not close enough to doing the ‘all switch to red at once’ to not have it ‘go badly’. So if you vote red next time you’re ‘killing’ me too.